Welfare Conditionality and Social Identity Effect Mechanisms and the Case of Immigrant Support

Abstract

The present paper discusses the effects of social identity and self-determination theory and highlights their relevance for welfare conditionality with respect to individual behaviour and well-being. While welfare conditionality may provide economic incentives for certain desired behaviours, e.g., active job search, it is argued that their impact on the claimants’ social self-construal and identity may offset potentially positive effects and increase, for example, social segregation. Taking the integration of immigrants, one of the biggest contemporary challenges for many societies, as a leading example, possible negative effects of welfare conditionality are highlighted and contrasted with the imposed economic incentives. Weighing benefits and potential risks, it is argued that the excessive use of welfare conditionality is likely to backfire in the long run and that this should be taken into account by policy makers. Moreover, it is argued how similar effects can be expected to arise also in different contexts such as the support of child parenting by singles.

1. Introduction

Common government-provided welfare support is a form of social insurance to ensure that all members of a society can live above a minimum standard of living (cf. Barr 2004). However, due to worries regarding dependency and moral hazard, i.e., focusing more on individual responsibility regarding self-sustenance, such support has often become conditioned on certain behaviours and/or characteristics of the claimants (e.g., White 2000; Wright 2012; Dwyer 2004; Reeves and Loopstra 2017; McGann et al. 2020). In a nutshell, the idea behind such welfare conditionality is that one main reason why claimants are in need is a lack of proper motivation to actively improve their situation, e.g., through active attempts at reintegration into the labour market. Tying social benefits to socially desired behaviours, then, is thought to provide the necessary (economic) incentives for claimants to engage in such behaviours (cf. Dwyer 1998; Sage 2012; Wright 2012). In that sense, welfare conditionality relies on a common economic incentive argument.

Yet, various research studies suggest that welfare conditionality triggers more than the intended motivational effects (e.g., Reeves and Loopstra 2017; McGann et al. 2020; van Berkel 2020; Wright et al. 2020). In particular, it seems that different from welfare support per se, welfare conditionality and the implied lack of motivation affect the claimants’ relation to society in significant ways. For example, McGann et al. (2020) find that the implied lack of motivation correlates with a more aggressive attitude of street-level workers towards claimants (see Nyhlén et al. 2024, for a related discussion). van Berkel (2020), in turn, argues that the increased emphasis on potentially lacking motivation tends to shift attention from support based on individual needs towards support tied to surveillance. In line with these findings, but studying the receivers’ side, Wright et al. (2020) find more conditionality to increase the claimants’ subjective perception of being criminalised. Moreover, Reeves and Loopstra (2017) find that conditionality is particularly harmful to vulnerable claimants such as single parents. Thus, potentially positive economic incentive effects appear to be counterbalanced by social repercussions, which, in their own way, may affect the claimants’ motivation regarding self-sustenance as well as their successful (re-)integration into society.1

More specifically, the examples referred to above suggest that a crucial sideline of effects triggered by welfare conditionality—being treated more aggressively, feeling criminalised, etc.—relates to the claimants’ relation to their society, here conceived of as an important (in-)group they belong to. This is particularly relevant as the strength of one’s identification with a certain in-group is decisive for individual cooperation with that group (e.g., Akerlof and Kranton 2000, 2005; Wichardt 2008), and trying to become less dependent on social support can arguably be seen as a matter of cooperation with society. Thus, if welfare conditionality is to be argued for or against on solid grounds, even ignoring potential moral concerns (e.g., Nevile 2008; Watts-Cobbe and Fitzpatrick 2023), a sound understanding of social identity-related effects appears to be valuable to have. In fact, related effects have already been discussed with respect to other policy issues such as income distribution (e.g., Shayo 2009; Holm 2016) or migration (e.g., Kofman 2005; Wodak and Boukala 2015; Heidland and Wichardt 2025).

In the present paper, we present some core findings from the social psychology literature regarding possible underlying mechanisms of such social side effects of welfare conditionality. The purpose of this endeavour is to increase the awareness of some of the more subtle but, nevertheless, relevant processes that otherwise are often overlooked in the debate. In doing so, we focus especially on social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel 1974; or Tajfel and Turner 1979) and self-determination theory (e.g., Ryan and Deci 2017; or Deci and Ryan 2000).2 While different in details of the argument (cf. Deci and Ryan 2000), both theories deal with questions about how we, as members of society, integrate and are influenced by the norms of the groups we associate with. In doing so, social identity theory puts more emphasis on a general individual desire to adhere to the norms of groups we identify with (see Wichardt 2008 for a review of effects relevant to cooperation). Self-determination theory, in turn, emphasises the importance of individual autonomy in the process of internalisation and following these norms (cf. Deci and Ryan 2000). As the discussion of welfare conditionality touches on both belonging to and cooperating with a core in-group, i.e., one’s society, as well as issues of autonomy, our hope is that a review of core ideas of both theories will prove helpful to the overall discussion.

In the next section, we first present some core insights related to social identity and self-determination theory in order to provide an overview of potentially relevant effects (Section 2). In the second step, we relate these insights to the general discussion around welfare conditionality (Section 3). Finally, we take up the debate about immigrant support as a specific case to illustrate the policy relevance of our theoretical argument (Section 4). The example is chosen for reasons of both actuality and general importance. In Europe, for example, the crises in Syria and Ukraine have led to large numbers of refugees seeking shelter (cf. UNHCR 2024d, 2024e); in the US 2024 presidential elections, immigration was one of the main issues discussed (e.g., BBC 2024). In either case, potential benefits from immigration hinge on the successful integration of the immigrants into the new in-group, i.e., the host society (e.g., Alesina and La Ferrara 2005; Bisin et al. 2011). And, as we will argue based on the preceding discussion, the conditioning of welfare support may hamper such integration. This paper concludes with some summarising remarks (Section 5).

2. Social Identity and Self-Determination Theory

In the following, we present some core insights from social identity theory and self-determination theory, focusing on what we believe to be most relevant for the discussion of welfare conditionality and activation policies. The presentation follows the historical order, starting with social identity theory (Section 2.1) and then moving on to self-determination theory (Section 2.2).

2.1. (Social) Identity Theory

2.1.1. Individual Identity

From a scientific perspective, individual identity, broadly speaking, is viewed as part of the self (e.g., McCall 2003; Burke and Tully 1977; Stets and Burke 2003) or self-concept (e.g., Turner 1982; Turner et al. 1987; Rosenberg 1979). In the literature, it is usually separated into personal identity and social identity (e.g., Rosenberg 1979; Turner 1982), where social identity refers to the self-perception derived from one’s belonging to a group (e.g., Tajfel and Turner 1979), whereas personal identity refers to the characteristics and abilities of an individual separating them from others, such as creativity or physical abilities (e.g., Reynolds et al. 2003; Reynolds and Turner 2006; Swann 2012).‎3 However, although personal identity primarily refers to the unique characteristics of the individual, it still depends on social and institutional factors (Owens et al. 2010) and, hence, may also be understood as a part of social identity (Rosenberg 1979; Owens et al. 2010).

As welfare conditionality acts on the relation between the individual and a core group they belong to, i.e., society, the subsequent discussion focuses on social identity and, in particular, the influence of different group associations on individual behaviour. In fact, a central notion of the argument will be that individual identities differ in the way they are hierarchically organised, i.e., in what is more relevant to the individual and what is not (e.g., Stryker 2000, 2002). These hierarchies are important to recognise in order to understand why some people invest more time and effort in certain identities than others. This, as we will see later, is exactly where the main social side effects of welfare conditionality derive from.

2.1.2. Basic Ideas of Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory studies behaviour between different groups in order to understand, for example, inter-group conflicts (cf. Tajfel and Turner 1979).‎4 The theory banks on the idea that an individual’s social identity reflects an understanding of the self as part of an in-group, which facilitates the orientation of the individual in their social environment (Tajfel and Turner 1979).5 In this respect, the theory is congruent with identity theory, which assumes that identities are derived from the internalisation of the individual’s roles within a society (e.g., teacher, husband, etc.) and the corresponding role expectations (e.g., Stryker 2001 or Burke and Stets 2009). A key aspect of social identity theory is its ability to explain how inter-group conflicts can arise in the absence of obvious conflicts of interest and how discrimination in terms of in-group favouritism matters in such situations (Tajfel and Turner 1979).‎6 For example, in a number of experiments, Tajfel and colleagues demonstrated that the mere perception of belonging to a different group suffices to induce discriminatory behaviour based on in-group favouritism, thereby stirring inter-group conflicts (e.g., Tajfel et al. 1971; Billig and Tajfel 1973; see also, Tajfel and Turner 1979).

In order to study various inter-group phenomena, the theory relies on three interrelated central concepts in addition to social identity (as introduced above), namely, social categorisation, social comparison, and psychological distinctiveness (cf. Tajfel 1974; Tajfel and Turner 1979). In a nutshell, social categorisation says that individuals categorise their social surroundings into different groups, some of which they themselves belong to (referred to as in-groups). In the words of Tajfel (1974, p. 69) “[…], social categorization can be understood as the ordering of social environment in terms of social categories, that is of groupings of persons in a manner which is meaningful to the subject”. It is a central concept not only for the theory in general but also for the formation of social identities. Social comparison, in turn, refers to the fact that whether belonging to a certain group positively contributes to the individual’s self-concept depends on how the group compares with others. Finally, psychological distinctiveness indicates that the value of the various facets of the in-group derives from the perceived difference from other groups. The behavioural relevance of the theory derives from the fact that people generally pursue a positive (social) identity (Tajfel 1974; Tajfel and Turner 1979). In fact, social identity is seen as being relevant to various aspects of individual well-being, such as a sense of belonging, purpose, and a feeling of security (Haslam et al. 2009; Jetten et al. 2017).

Regarding behaviour, it is important to note that the individual’s identification with various groups or positions simultaneously (within the family, the sports club, occupation, etc.) may lead to internal conflicts (cf. Stryker 2000, 2002; Wichardt 2008). Observing this, Stryker (2001, p. 228)—with respect to identity theory—defines identity salience as “the probability an identity will be invoked in and across situations”. The higher an identity’s salience in a situation, the higher the probability a person follows the corresponding role expectations (Stryker 2001; see, for example, Wichardt 2008, for a summary of what affects the salience of different identities; see also Turner et al. 1987). Moreover, with respect to the relative importance of different in-groups for the individual, Stryker (2001) specifically mentions commitment. This refers to the individual’s social network and compares (1) the number of relationships tied to the respective identity and (2) the relevance or perceived depth of these (Stryker 2001). Commitment, then, allows for comparisons of the social cost and benefits that accrue to the individual in view of their different affected relationships if they follow a certain role instead of another (Stryker 2001). Translated to social identity and somewhat simplified, this corresponds to comparing the costs and benefits of following one group norm rather than another, as derived from the individual relations within different groups.

Moreover, (social) identity is not a rigid construct (e.g., Ethier and Deaux 1994). Thus, if the value of a certain social identity for the self is no longer favourable, the theory considers several options (cf. Tajfel and Turner 1979): Social mobility—inasmuch as it is easy to change one’s connection with a certain group, the individual will try and move to a “better” group, i.e., a group that offers more favourable comparisons along the relevant dimensions. Social creativity—if moving on is not possible (a) new dimensions or factors can be sought that may lead to more positive comparisons with relevant out-groups; (b) dimensions or factors used for comparisons are evaluated more positively, i.e., beliefs are adjusted; or (c) a change of the relevant reference out-groups is made to ones that compare more favourably. Thus, the individual either changes the organisation of their social environment or their perception of the status quo for the better. Similarly, social competition can be used to actively try and improve the relative standing of one’s in-group to relevant out-groups (cf. Tajfel and Turner 1979). Put simply, if external factors render the individual’s benefit from a certain identity less positive, the individual will strive for improvements in the respective comparisons—including the possibility of weakening or abandoning certain group associations.

2.1.3. Summing Up

To summarise, social identity theory posits that individuals build a relevant part of their self-concepts on associations with the groups they belong to (in an attempt to organise the perception of social surroundings and to generate meaning and relatedness as well as positive comparisons). Moreover, individuals favour in-groups over out-groups to the benefit of their social comparisons. In the case of internal conflicts due to different group associations, the relevance of these in-groups for determining actual behaviour is contingent upon the extent to which they are more beneficial in terms of the affected social relations. Finally, if social comparisons are found lacking, in-groups or dimensions of comparisons can be changed. In brief, what is key for the later discussion of welfare conditionality is the fact that positive identifications are important for the individual’s behavioural choice of which group norms to follow.

2.2. Self-Determination Theory

2.2.1. Basic Ideas of Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory studies individual motivation within social contexts. In doing so, it differentiates specifically between autonomous (intrinsic) and controlled (extrinsic) motivation and how they affect behaviour (cf. Deci and Ryan 2000, 2012; or Ryan and Deci 2017, 2022). The theory started out from studies on the interplay of extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation, which suggested that extrinsic incentives to perform a certain task may actually undermine the intrinsic motivation for activity in the desired direction (cf. Deci 1971; see Deci et al. 1999 for a review of results)—an idea, the relevance of which, for the present discussion, should be immediate.

The theory builds on the empirically derived assumption that “[…] the human organism is evolved to be inherently active, intrinsically motivated, and oriented toward developing naturally through integrative processes”. (Deci and Ryan 2012, p. 417) and that this development is strongly affected by the individual’s social environment (cf. Deci and Ryan 2012). Put simply, we all have a natural tendency to actively strive to grow and to improve our situation in a socially non-destructive way. Moreover, within their social environment, the individual is understood as having at least three universal psychological needs, namely, competence, autonomy, and relatedness, which are important for individual development and functioning (cf. Deci and Ryan 2000, 2012; see also, Ryan et al. 1996).7 The satisfaction of these needs by a certain social environment is key to a successful interaction of the individual with that environment and, with respect to the later discussion, the integration of extrinsic motivations (cf. Deci and Ryan 2000).

2.2.2. Autonomy and Extrinsic Motivation

The literature distinguishes three relevant forms of motivation: amotivation (i.e., absence of motivation), extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation (cf. Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2022). Regarding the individual’s reception of extrinsic motivation, this is thought of as existing in different degrees of internalisation, namely, external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation—going from weaker to stronger forms of internalisation (cf. Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2022). The deepest form of internalisation, integration, is described by Ryan and Deci (2022, p. 3) as “integrated regulation is based in believing that the activity is personally important for one’s own values and goals”.8 Thus, the deeper the internalisation of some extrinsic regulation, the weaker the experienced conflict between corresponding behaviour and feelings of autonomy.

What is important with respect to the later discussion of the effects of welfare conditionality is the determinants of the individual’s integration of external motivations and values. As Deci and Ryan (2000, p. 227) write, “Social contexts and individual differences that support satisfaction of the basic needs facilitate natural growth processes including intrinsically motivated behaviour and integration of extrinsic motivations, whereas those that forestall autonomy, competence, or relatedness are associated with poorer motivation, performance, and well-being”.9 Thus, a supportive and autonomy-preserving social context is conducive to natural individual growth processes, intrinsically motivated behaviour, and the integration of extrinsic motivations, whereas if a context is very controlling, too demanding, or rejecting, more defensive responses, as well as lower motivation, performance, and well-being, is what follows (see also Deci and Ryan 2012). Notably, autonomy is not simply understood as the individual making a decision without explicit threats, but it is linked to the so-called perceived locus of causality (cf. Heider 1958; de Charms 1968), which can be thought of as a kind of answer to the question “why am I doing this?”. For example, not only threats of punishment but also monetary rewards, competition, or even feedback would be perceived as external loci of causality (see, e.g., Deci and Ryan 2012, for a discussion).

Moreover, while rewards, threats, surveillance, or evaluation conflicting with autonomy, typically have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation (e.g., Lepper and Greene 1975; Deci et al. 1981; Harackiewicz et al. 1984; Deci et al. 1999), positive feedback and choice, supporting autonomy, have a positive effect (e.g., Zuckerman et al. 1978; Deci et al. 1999).10 Thus, if an individual is supposed to follow intrinsically an external regulation, a supportive social environment that does not question the individual’s autonomy is most conducive. Again, as expressed in the words of Deci and Ryan (2000, p. 238) “For integration to occur there must be an opportunity for the individual to freely process and endorse transmitted values and regulations (and to modify or transform them when necessary). Excessive external pressures, controls, and evaluations appear to forestall rather than facilitate this active, constructive process of giving personal meaning and valence to acquired regulations”. In line with this, it has, for example, been shown that a more autonomy-supportive attitude of instructors induces a stronger internalisation of presented values by students and fosters stronger intrinsic motivation to learn course material (cf. Williams and Deci 1996).

More generally, internalisation itself is a natural process in which social norms and rules are learned by the individual and integrated into the self. If unobstructed, the individual remains self-determined while, at the same time, becoming more integrated into their society (cf. Deci and Ryan 2000). In this process, social environments that are more supportive of the three basic needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness foster a deeper internalisation and more autonomous self-regulation (Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2022), i.e., more autonomous learning and positive social feedback lead to deeper rooted motivations. Given the general relevance of the argument, it comes as no surprise that self-determination theory has, for example, already been applied to contexts of education, health behaviour, and management (e.g., Deci and Ryan 1985; Ryan and Deci 2017). As the goal of welfare conditionality is to also motivate claimants into lasting activity to improve their individual situation, this interplay of autonomy and motivation has a clear bearing on such policies, as we will discuss in the next section.

2.2.3. Summing Up

To summarise, self-determination theory emphasises the importance of autonomy (in addition to competence and relatedness) for both intrinsic motivation towards activity and for the internalisation process of social values and regulations.11 It is only when the individual feels self-determined in their behaviour that they reach optimal levels of motivation, performance, and well-being. Social environments that are more autonomy-supportive are more conducive to this process. Social environments that thwart autonomy hinder developments towards motivation to activity following social regulations and values and rather foster defensive reactions.

3. Welfare Conditionality and Social Motivations

3.1. Welfare Conditionality and Activation Policies

Social welfare support intends to ensure a minimum standard of living for the members of a society (e.g., Barr 2004). Welfare conditionality and activation policies, in turn, aim to change the organisation and distribution of such support, including sanctions, in a way that motivates the receivers of such support to comply to their social duties and to actively try and re-integrate into the labour market (e.g., Dwyer 1998; Geldof 1999; van Berkel 2010; Sage 2012). In Europe, this development was primarily driven by ideas associated with the “Third Way” (cf. Giddens 1998, 2000), following a notion of “no rights without responsibilities” (cf. Geldof 1999; Dwyer 2004).

More specifically, the first wave of activation policies was mostly concerned with explicitly expressing the content of the formal reforms. The more operational level of these reforms, then, was addressed in a second wave addressing the way in which services were actually provided (cf. Carmel and Papadopoulos 2003; van Berkel 2010). What is particularly relevant for the present discussion is that, in the course of the reforms, the role of the agencies offering the respective social services changed. While initially, the focus was essentially on securing a certain standard of living for the claimants, the reforms initiated a change towards also influencing the claimants’ behaviour.

In order to link the ideas of welfare conditionality to the above discussion of social identity and self-determination, note that with respect to social support claimants shall, on the one hand, be protected and supported by society and, on the other hand, be motivated to return to less dependency and more autonomy. Thus, put abstractly, the in-group, i.e., society, offers to support its members if in need, but likewise expects them to contribute to the group’s resources—by generating their own taxable income—rather than relying on the group inasmuch as possible. Seen from that angle, social welfare support, as well as the individual’s effort not to exploit it unduly, can be seen as two facets of cooperation within the group. The question of whether support is best conditioned on certain behaviours and/or characteristics, then, is effectively asking whether explicit or implicit expectations regarding cooperation are more effective to properly motivate claimants.12

3.2. Effects Related to Social Identity

As we have argued in Section 2.1, part of any individual’s identity originates from their association with various social groups—some of them freely chosen (family, friends, sports club, etc.) and some mostly predetermined and difficult to change (gender, nationality, etc.). These social identities determine which groups people cooperate with and which they are neutral or defensive towards. Moreover, what is important regarding the relevance of one in-group relative to another is the salience of the respective in-group in a certain context and the effect a chosen behaviour has on the various personal ties related to the affected in-groups (e.g., Stryker 2000, 2001, 2002; Wichardt 2008). Thus, as society is one of the natural in-groups, it has to compete for the cooperation of its members. That this may lead to different outcomes is, perhaps, best illustrated by a personal anecdote of one of the authors, who once was struck by a Swedish fellow student expressing his take on taxation in Sweden by saying “There is something we get in return, like streets, healthcare, …”—a thought that, at the time, had never crossed the author’s German mind in a similarly positive way.

Notably, the differences in attitude expressed in the anecdote hint at a crucial aspect of social identity, namely, that cooperation with an in-group (here, society via tax payments) depends strongly on the relevance this in-group has for the individual. Now, it is well known that identification with smaller groups is easier than with larger ones (see Wichardt 2008 for a survey of effects and references), which may partly lie behind differences between social cohesion in Sweden and in Germany. Yet, whatever the natural conditions, a core determinant for the individual to comply with social norms is their identification with that in-group and the salience of that identity (cf. Stryker 2001). As we have seen, for this identification to be strong, positive social feedback on behaviour is needed (an aspect also relevant to self-determination theory).

However, if welfare conditionality becomes associated with a negative stereotyping of the claimants of support by non-claimants (e.g., McGann et al. 2020; van Berkel 2020; Wright et al. 2020), social feedback for claimants worsens. Accordingly, the claimants’ benefit from the in-group decreases (note that economic social support is obviously not conditioned on the strength of identification with society13). Hence, a change in the focus of the individual towards other in-groups may result—making the following of social norms even less likely or more superficial, albeit supposedly leading to behavioural changes triggered by the respective changes in social identity (e.g., Mols et al. 2015), just not in the direction initially intended.

3.3. Effects Related to Self-Determination

As we have seen, self-determination theory emphasises both the relevance of autonomy (self-determination) for intrinsic motivation and the importance of intrinsic motivation for more effective behaviour and well-being (e.g., Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2017). Moreover, it highlights how external factors such as threats or surveillance not only reduce motivation but also hinder a deep integration of motivation for the corresponding behaviours (e.g., Deci and Ryan 2000). Thus, while social identity arguments are concerned with the adherence to social norms as associated with different (in-)groups, self-determination also considers the depth of internalisation of these norms, arguing that more autonomy and positive social support are important for such internalisation.

Yet again, welfare conditionality and activation policies are often connected to (at least a perception of) surveillance and possible sanctioning (e.g., McGann et al. 2020; van Berkel 2020). However, according to Oshana (1998), coercion, manipulation, or having to submit to dominance are what undermine autonomy.14 Thus, seen from the perspective of self-determination theory, welfare conditionality runs the risk not only to demotivate claimants to actively pursue the desired behaviours (e.g., active job search) but also to hamper the internalisation of the corresponding societal norms. Ironically, while intended to foster more autonomy (e.g., through own income), it is the implicit restriction of the claimants’ autonomy that endangers the success of such policies.

3.4. Example: Unemployment Support

A central ingredient of almost any welfare system is unemployment support. If the individual cannot themselves sustain their basic needs, society steps in to ensure a minimum standard of living. Over the years, such unemployment support has become at least partly conditional in many countries (see, for example, Dahl 2003; Patrick 2014; Wright and Patrick 2019). However, both Dahl (2003) and Patrick (2014), by analysing the effectiveness of conditional support, find no positive effect of such measures. In fact, Wright and Patrick (2019, p. 609) even come to the conclusion that “Rather than producing the imagined social benefits, like an escape from poverty or better health, the threat of sanctions had widespread ill-effects on the mental health of many recipients in the two studies”. In the next paragraphs, we argue that the general thrust of these findings is at least compatible with the social psychological processes outlined above.

In order to understand the relevance of identity and self-determination in such instances, note first that unemployment itself is generally found to have a negative impact on individual well-being, and one possible reason for this is identity loss (e.g., Schöb 2013). In fact, this identity loss can indeed be even stronger if the person feels personally responsible for the job loss (Hamilton et al. 1993; Schöb 2013). Thus, unemployment per se is problematic for the individual from an identity perspective. Obviously, this situation is aggravated if conditional welfare support is tied to the view that unemployment is indeed self-induced and that those receiving unemployment support lack the appropriate motivation to reintegrate into the labour market. That this view may indeed be a common perception in the population is, for example, suggested by Sage (2012). And, notably, young unemployed people tend to perceive such stereotypes as even more negative than they actually are (cf. Breakwell et al. 1984).

Moreover, seen from the perspective of self-determination theory, what is put into question by such stereotypes is competence as, simply put, the unemployed are viewed as incapable of being employed. However, autonomy and relatedness are also implicitly threatened in view of the perception of many measures as surveillance (e.g., van Berkel 2020) and feelings of being criminalised (Wright et al. 2020). As we have argued above, though, all three aspects—competence, autonomy, and relatedness—are important for the individual to internalise external regulations and values. Thus, from the perspective of identity and self-determination theory, there is reason to argue that conditional unemployment support may at best be ineffective—as found, for example, by Dahl (2003), Patrick (2014), and Wright and Patrick (2019).15

Finally, if the common sentiment of society is that unemployment is due to individual misbehaviour, as implicitly suggested by conditional welfare support, it is likely that people become increasingly dissatisfied with the idea of a tax-based provision of unemployment support (cf. Furaker and Blomsterberg 2003). This, in turn, would worsen cohesion within society and may lead to a further emotional separation of claimants from society as an important in-group for their (social) identity. Moreover, an increasing inclination of claimants towards groups that offer more positive relational feedback and are more supportive of needs for competence and self-determination—even if only at first sight—seems reasonable to expect as identities are not completely stable and need room to be lived to be stabilised (cf. Anteby 2008). This will be even more important for the example of immigrant support discussed in the next section.

3.5. Summing Up

To summarise, while welfare conditionality may have positive economic incentive effects, insights from both social identity theory and self-determination theory suggest that the long-run effect may still be negative (see Figure 1 for illustration). On the one hand, identification with society as a whole is likely to be weakened if welfare support becomes associated with surveillance, threat, and distancing of other more affluent members of society (cf. McGann et al. 2020; van Berkel 2020; Wright et al. 2020). On the other hand, the same associations are what self-determination theory has identified as being detrimental to intrinsic motivation, effective behaviour, and well-being. Assuming that a deep integration of the motivation leading to activation is desired, again the assessment of conditionality from a self-determination perspective is negative.

It should be clear, though, that this summary focuses on what is to be expected from the perspective of the social incentives discussed in Section 2. It does not deny the efficacy of economic incentives and, hence, does not suggest dismissing all measures of welfare conditionality per se. What it does is warn that economic incentives are not all there is to common activation policies.16 And, considering that economic incentives are comparably easy to change, while social association and dynamics are typically not, we would at least like to emphasise that the arguments presented here suggest that the long-term price for short-term effects may be much higher than initially expected. From that perspective, at least the implementation of activation policies that additionally emphasise personal ties to society and also provide positive social feedback seems to be called for.17 And it seems worthwhile to keep in mind that Mols et al. (2015) argue that lasting behavioural changes can be achieved via changes in (social) identity—for better or worse.

4. The Case of Immigrant Support

Finally, we illustrate the political relevance of the above theoretical argument using social immigrant support as an applied example. It is important to clarify straight away that for the arguments presented below, we do not explicitly distinguish between different types of immigrants, i.e., people migrating for economic, political, or reasons of local military conflicts as long as there is some intention of staying for a longer period of time.18 Thus, while we acknowledge the different circumstances of such groups (e.g., regular immigrants and refugees), and the relevance of these differences for the provision of support, we abstract from these differences in the sequel.19 The reason for doing so is that the focus of the argument will be on the question of how the conditionality of the support for either group—if needed because the immigrants cannot support themselves—might hamper their integration into society or even contribute to developments towards extremism. The practical relevance of the arguments, of course, will depend on whether a long-term stay and integration is a primary goal for the respective group or not. In either case, however, we believe that the social psychological effects of the different measures are useful to keep in mind.

Moreover, a sound understanding of the different effect mechanisms related to immigrant support seems particularly relevant in view of the increasing tension in the political debate around migration in recent years. For example, migration from African countries and the question of how to accommodate the substantial number of refugees fleeing from conflicts in Syria or Ukraine has been at the centre of much political debate in the EU in recent years (e.g., The Guardian 2024), and immigration was also a central topic in the 2024 US elections (e.g., BBC 2024). Given the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers reaching the EU from various directions (e.g., UNHCR 2024a, 2024b, 2024c, 2024d, 2024e), it can be expected that a large number of them will stay in the EU at least for several years; for example, for Germany, the number of migrants who actually returned to their home countries is small compared to the number of yearly asylum seekers (cf. Statista 2024a, 2024b, 2024c; see also Destatis 2024). This poses the question of how to best treat the incoming group of people both from an economic and social perspective.

Answers to such questions are vital as the successful integration of immigrants (even if only temporary) can decrease the economic costs of migration and increase cultural diversity, which is beneficial for long-run economic development (cf. Alesina and La Ferrara 2005). Failed integration, however, can lead to discontent and segregation and may foster violent extremism (e.g., Bisin et al. 2011).20 In the sequel, we discuss both general adverse social circumstances that may hinder the successful integration of immigrants and how conditional welfare support for immigrants is likely to interact with these. First, however, we provide some conceptual clarification.

4.1. Integration

As a first step, it is useful to clarify what is meant by integration. Berry (1997) considers four strategies of cultural adaptation (acculturation) and, in particular, distinguishes between assimilation and integration—the other two being separation and marginalisation.21 According to Berry (p. 9), assimilation refers to the situation where the minority group does not want to keep their cultural identity. Integration, in turn, describes the case where both groups want to maintain their cultural identity, so that “there is some degree of cultural integrity maintained, while at the same time seeking to participate as an integral part of the larger social network” (Berry 1997, p. 9). Importantly, the successful integration of non-dominant groups requires an open attitude towards minority rights and the cultural diversity of the host society (cf. Berry 1991). Thus, integration requires a certain degree of mutual adaptation in that the incoming group has to adopt the basic values of the host society while the latter has to make institutional changes so as to also account for the cultural needs of the new citizens (Berry 1997, 2006).22

With respect to actual social processes, Brown and Hewstone (2005, p. 315f) write “Much research testifies to the fact that minority groups tend to favor integration (Berry 1997; Van de Vijver et al. 1999; Van Oudenhoven et al. 1998), and that this strategy seems to be associated with better acculturation outcomes (Berry 1997; Liebkind 2001). Among majority or host-society groups, the picture is less clear. Some have found that they also prefer integration (Piontkowski et al. 2000), while others have found a preference for assimilation (Van Oudenhoven et al. 1998)”. Thus, integration is what non-dominant groups usually prefer, while the evidence for host societies is more mixed. What is important in view of the present discussion is that integration, as defined by Berry (1997), at least partly retains the old cultural identity and grants a reasonable degree of autonomy.

4.2. Two Social Adversities

In general, the integration of immigrants into a (new) host society faces many practical problems—not least language barriers and cultural differences. Against the backdrop of the present discussion, two deserve a particular mention.

First of all, a natural hindrance to successful integration is that contact with members from a hitherto unfamiliar out-group tends to trigger some anxiety in most people, referred to by social psychologists as inter-group anxiety (cf. Stephan and Stephan 1985; or Stephan 2014). Research on inter-group contact theory (Allport 1954) has identified various effects helping to reduce such anxiety and to increase inter-group trust (see, for example, Pettigrew 1998; Brown and Hewstone 2005; Hewstone 2009, 2015; Paluck et al. 2019; or Paolini et al. 2021 for general discussions; see Heidland and Wichardt 2025, for a discussion of the effects of perspective taking by out-group members). Yet, the core insight for the present discussion is that the mere contact with the so-far unfamiliar already causes (inter-group) anxiety, which will influence behaviour and attitudes towards the respective out-group in ways unlikely to facilitate integration. This is mentioned here to emphasise that successful integration is socially difficult even without additional hindrances potentially posed by immigrant support being conditional.

Moreover, concerning common worries of extremism among immigrants, Lyons-Padilla et al. (2015) emphasise that a loss in self-worth (or significance loss), e.g., due to marginalisation, discrimination, or perceived maltreatment by society, tends to make individuals amenable to more radical groups with a clear ideology to stabilise their identity. For example, the authors identify significance loss as a mediator between marginalisation and support for fundamentalist groups and radical interpretation of Islam, while integration has a negative effect on significance loss. This is in accordance with arguments suggesting that identity uncertainty can increase the attractiveness of more extreme groups and behaviours (e.g., Hogg 2014). Focusing on Muslim immigrants in particular, Lyons-Padilla et al. (2015) argue that “Our results suggest that helping Muslims become more integrated into and accepted by society and supporting their efforts to preserve aspects of their own culture could be steps that help prevent such radicalization” (Lyons-Padilla et al. 2015, p. 3). In line with the above definition of integration, this again emphasises the relevance of autonomy, relatedness, and the stability of part of the immigrants’ cultural identity.

4.3. Effects Related to Conditional Immigrant Support

In view of the preceding discussion about the relevance of integration and potential obstacles, we finally relate the earlier insights from social identity theory and self-determination theory to the conditionality of immigrant support.

As an example, we consider some prominent current regulations for immigrants in Germany (similar regulations can be found in various other countries). These specify, for instance, that asylum seekers generally have to accept living in initial reception centres for 24 months (BMJ 2024b). While potentially having a deterrent effect on unwanted migration, this naturally hinders inter-group contact and stigmatises immigrants. Moreover, financial benefits are becoming more and more paid via a card system restricting their use (cf. §3 BMJ 2024a), thereby restricting the receivers’ autonomy. In fact, full social benefits are only paid after asylum has been granted (BMAS 2024), which, in 2024, took, on average, eight months (Tagesschau 2024a) or at the latest three years (cf. §2 BMJ 2024a). Moreover, regarding labour market access, people from countries of origin classified as secure are generally denied access (BMJ 2024c), while other asylum seekers have to wait 3 to 6 months (BMJ 2024c). The approval of foreign degrees, however, can take years (Tagesschau 2024b). Obviously, such regulations compromise both competence and autonomy, and taken together, likely hamper relatedness (cf. Section 2.2).

Accordingly, it seems plausible that all measures discussed here have social side effects hindering integration and a deep internalisation of values instead of helping it. This would, indeed, be compatible with 78% of Germans reporting that they perceive the integration of refugees into society and the labour market as rather bad or very bad (Tagesschau 2023) and that, currently, almost 50% of Germans mention immigration and flight as one of the two most pressing political problems (WDR 2024). Ironically, social distancing, as expressed in increased conditionality of the support, is a common response to anxieties. Yet, as argued above, it comes at the risk of fostering increased segregation and polarisation. In particular, as we have argued in Section 2.2, if immigrants are restricted in their self-determination, the internalisation of values and norms of the host society will be hampered. This, however, is likely to further strengthen worries of extremism and emerging sub-societies as well as calls for more control, surveillance, and the closing of borders—paving the way for a vicious cycle.

However, the preceding discussion also highlights possible ways of improvement: stabilising the identity of both the host community and immigrants as well as strengthening self-determination in the adoption of new values and norms, i.e., refraining from conditionalities in support where possible and supplementing it with other social support where still deemed necessary. As this is unlikely to dissolve all worries in the short run, it seems worthwhile to also emphasise that more openness towards immigrants can be achieved through perspective-taking regarding the worries of the host societies (e.g., Heidland and Wichardt 2025). And we are inclined to speculate that increased openness will reduce voices calling for more conditionality, control, and surveillance, thereby helping to jointly develop society towards a prosperous and integrated future.

5. Concluding Remarks

Welfare conditionality and the corresponding activation policies are meant to motivate claimants into activity to improve their individual situation so as to become independent of social support (cf. Dwyer 1998; Sage 2012; Wright 2012). And, indeed, from an economic perspective, welfare conditionality seems to provide the appropriate positive incentives to change behaviour in the desired direction. Yet, as we have theoretically argued in the preceding sections, focusing on economic incentives alone neglects crucial social psychological effect mechanisms entailed in such measures. As Deci and Ryan (2012, p. 416, our emphasis) put it when describing their field of research, “The central focus of social psychology has long been the effects of social environments on people’s attitudes, values, motivations, and behaviors, and there can be little doubt that environmental forces have an enormous impact on these outcomes”. The purpose of this paper was to shed some light on some of these forces inasmuch as we considered them relevant to the discussion of welfare conditionality.

In particular, the focus of the discussion has been on insights from social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel 1974; or Tajfel and Turner 1979) and self-determination theory (e.g., Ryan and Deci 2017; or Deci and Ryan 2000). In this context, particular emphasis has been placed on the mechanisms associated with the claimant’s social identity and autonomy in relation to the resulting motivation to follow socially desired behaviour. As we have seen, the degree of adherence to and, in fact, the internalisation of norms and values related to an important (in-)group, such as society, can be influenced by the extent of identification and the perceived autonomy (as well as supportive social feedback) experienced in the process. Following this line of argument, we have argued how welfare conditionality resulting from activation policies may potentially compromise the claimant’s need for autonomy and, consequently, their intrinsic motivation, as such policies are often associated with surveillance or criminalisation of the claimants (e.g., van Berkel 2020; Wright et al. 2020).

Finally, in order to illustrate the link of our theoretical argument to current social problems, we have taken up the debate about immigrant support as a specific example of high actual relevance. Again, linking the discussion to insights from social identity theory and self-determination theory, we have presented a series of arguments suggesting that the introduction of conditionality for immigrant support may in fact act as a barrier to successful integration. Thus, although, again, intended to avoid the exploitation of economic support and, in part, to ensure the adaptation of social norms of the host society, such measures may indeed have effects to the contrary. As successful integration is beneficial to long-run economic development (cf. Alesina and La Ferrara 2005), they may even run counter to the intended economic incentives. While admittedly not being able to pass any final judgement, we believe that the present discussion can at least be seen as calling for more awareness of social psychological effects in the policy debate, especially given the current and general importance of the issues involved.

It should be noted, at this point, that similar arguments can be made for other vulnerable claimants such as receivers of unemployment support (cf. Section 3) or single parents. In all cases, what is at stake is the identification of the claimants with society as well as their feelings of competence, autonomy, and relatedness—all vital to their motivation to comply with social norms and values.

To conclude, we want to re-emphasise that the present discussion is not intended as an argument against welfare conditionality per se. Instead, it meant to emphasise potential (long run) risks that otherwise might go unnoticed, with one risk being the further drifting apart of societies and increased polarisation—causal evidence from the media, in fact, suggests that this is indeed happening in many industrialised western societies. How much welfare conditionality is part of the reason for this development, of course, is difficult to judge. That it has contributed to an increased lack of cohesion, however, seems at least plausible in view of the arguments presented here, making it all the more important to obtain a better understanding of its social ramifications.